Transwomen are not Women - Part 15

Thermal said:
I have. I am acquainted with a couple. I find them to be playing around, like 2 spirits and Ocelotkins. I've read accounts of others, who equally come across as playing the special snowflake game.
Click to expand...
And trans identifying males who claim they are women come across as playing snowflake games too.
Thermal said:
The basis I've said. Sex is binary, and gender is coupled to (but not synonymous with) sex. There aren't additional options.
Click to expand...
That argument doesn't work. Gender is decoupled from sex, or else a male cannot have a female gender. So why can't someone's gender be something other than male or female? Why can't it be both? Why can't it be neither? Why can't it change over time? Nothing you have said provides any reason to reach the conclusion that it cannot be. The only way to reach that conclusion is to simply make it an axiomatic part of your idiosyncratic definition, but then we're just back to the impossibility of getting other people to accept that definition.
 
Last edited:
Thermal said:
Sex is binary, and gender is coupled to (but not synonymous with) sex. There aren't additional options.
Click to expand...
Third genderWP is a thing in some cultures; arguably OECD and other prosperous nations are moving towards that model by adopting a set of non-binary gender norms for the people who hope not to be held to the norms of either masculinity or femininity.
 
Last edited:
Thermal said:
I think it definitionally is. Like theprestige says, gender decoupled from sex is meaningless. Where I differ with him is that related ideas are still linked, but not synonymous.
Click to expand...
Okay, this is interesting and productive!

What would you say are the related ideas that are still linked, but not synonymous? Because I think the general idea seems reasonable enough, definitely worth considering. But I'd like to have a clearer idea of which related ideas you have in mind.
 
Thermal said:
Because it is prohibitively restrictive against transwomen, which as a relatively nice and accepting guy, I am viscerally resistant towards.
Click to expand...
What does "prohibitively restrictive" mean to you?

To me, it seems redundant, but also straightforward. Defining woman = bio female of course prohibitively restricts transwomen from women's sports, women's prisons, women's shelters, women's representation, etc. All that is as it should be. And last time I checked you tended to agree.

As far as I can tell, the only prohibitive restriction introduced by this definition, that you think should be lifted, is the prohibitive restriction on men using women's restrooms. This seems inconsistent with your apparently visceral acceptance of (approval of?) all the other prohibitive restrictions on sex-based categories, that arise from this definition.

Thermal said:
You did, and I don’t even wholly disagree. What it leads to makes me push back. I mean, I want to be cool with everybody, not marginalize a very small group.
Click to expand...
This seems like an entirely capricious and arbitrary position to take. I read it as an emotional appeal to ignore the reality of sex-based differences, their implications and conventions, in order to privilege a marginal group in ways that are senseless and counter-productive.

Thermal said:
It's more that I had to tear down a freaking flawless custom built-in set of cabinetry I made because the World's Most Indecisive Customer made another change and I'm running way behind schedule.
Click to expand...
I don't appreciate you taking out your frustrations with your job on me. If you don't have the bandwidth to engage civilly and constructively right now, feel free to take a step back, and return to this debate when you have more free time.
Thermal said:
You guys are delivering posts that require real consideration (@Ziggurat, too) but they turn off my electricity if I don't dig holes and fill them back in for this knucklehead.
Click to expand...
These ideas have been presented in this thread, for real consideration, for years. It's not my fault that the past few weeks, when you apparently had plenty of bandwidth, you squandered it on misunderstanding something, and then "trolling" about it, rather than giving things the serious consideration you think they deserve.
 
Thermal said:
The TRAs want full concession, and the Bashers want none.
Click to expand...
The trans privilege activists want full concession on overriding sex segregation. The "bashers" want no concession on this issue. What compromise do you propose for consideration? What would you like to see the TPAs give up, and what would you like to see the "bashers" give up, to meet somewhere in the middle on this?

The trans privilege activists want full concession on unproven, unregulated, irreversible "trans-affirming" medicine for minor children. The "bashers" want no concession on this issue. What compromise do you propose for consideration? What would you like to see the TPAs give up, and what would you like to see the "bashers" give up, to meet somewhere in the middle on this?

The trans privilege activists want full concession on equality of treatment, for housing, employment, access to services, regardless of gender expression. The "bashers" wholeheartedly agree, don't see it as a concession, and are perfectly content in the knowledge that this right to equal treatment has already been established in law and policy.
 
Last edited:
d4m10n said:
Third genderWP is a thing in some cultures; arguably OECD and other prosperous nations are moving towards that model by adopting a set of non-binary gender norms for the people who hope not to be held to the norms of either masculinity or femininity.
Click to expand...
My understanding is that cultures that have third genders (a) have pretty strict expectations about how the two sex-based genders should dress and behave, and (b) have equally strict expectations about how the third gender should dress and behave, as distinct from the other two. In that context, the third gender acts as pressure release valve.

It's a solution for societies that are trying to find a place for people who struggle to conform to their strict rules about binary gender roles in society. It's not a solution for societies that view such strict rules as regressive stereotypes, and have already abolished or deprecated most of them. No "non-binary" westerner is going to be happy at being told they're supposed to conform to some strict expectation of Third Gender Presentation - especially in a western context that already deprecated the strict expectations of the other two genders.
 
theprestige said:
The trans privilege activists want full concession on unproven, unregulated, irreversible "trans-affirming" medicine for minor children. The "bashers" want no concession on this issue. What compromise do you propose for consideration?
Click to expand...
I know you're not asking me, but my answer would be the same compromise proposed by the Cass Report.
​
The evidence base underpinning medical and non-medical interventions in this clinical area must be improved. Following our earlier recommendation to establish a puberty blocker trial, which has been taken forward by NHS England, we further recommend a full programme of research be established. This should look at the characteristics, interventions and outcomes of every young person presenting to the NHS gender services.​
​
The puberty blocker trial should be part of a programme of research which also evaluates outcomes of psychosocial interventions and masculinising/feminising hormones.​
​
Consent should routinely be sought for all children and young people for enrolment in a research study with follow-up into adulthood.​

There are other recommendations sprinkled throughout the report, such as "NHS England . . . should direct the gender clinics to participate in the data linkage study within the lifetime of the current statutory instrument" which I would also characterize as a compromise between unregulated gender affirming medicine on the one hand and total bans on the other.
 
Last edited:
d4m10n said:
The puberty blocker trial should be part of a programme of research which also evaluates outcomes of psychosocial interventions and masculinising/feminising hormones.
Click to expand...
The puberty blocker trial should not be tried at all. We have zero animal studies of puberty blockers used to delay puberty past the normal window, our understanding of the processes suggest that the effects are likely serious and negative, and there is little evidence that medical transition at any age actually produces significant long term benefits over other treatments. The risks to patients are not justified. If you were to accurately convey similar risk profiles to an institutional review board for any medical intervention that didn't have so much political baggage attached, there's not a chance in hell it would be approved.
 
d4m10n said:
I know you're not asking me, but my answer would be the same compromise proposed by the Cass Report.
​
The evidence base underpinning medical and non-medical interventions in this clinical area must be improved. Following our​
earlier recommendation to establish a puberty blocker trial, which has been taken forward by NHS England, we further recommend​
a full programme of research be established. This should look at the characteristics, interventions and outcomes of every young person​
presenting to the NHS gender services.​
​
The puberty blocker trial should be part of a programme of research which also evaluates outcomes of psychosocial interventions and masculinising/feminising hormones.​
​
Consent should routinely be sought for all children and young people for enrolment in a research study with follow-up into adulthood.​

There are other recommendations sprinkled throughout the report, such as "NHS England . . . should direct the gender clinics to participate in the data linkage study within the lifetime of the current statutory instrument" which I would also characterize as a compromise between unregulated gender affirming medicine on the one hand and total bans on the other.
Click to expand...
That all seems pretty reasonable to me.

So we've basically got three conflict scenarios:

1. Overriding sex segregation. I see no room for compromise there. Either the TPAs concede all their demands, or the "bashers" do. There's no rational middle ground that I can see.

2. Trans affirming care for minors. My personal, "basher" view is that trans identity in minors is at best a myth, and at worst social contagion/grooming. Either way, it should almost always be ignored, in favor of letting puberty (with its myriad and transient dysphorias) run its course, and then seeing what self-identity conflicts the emerging adult still struggles with. BUT - I am absolutely willing to change my stance, if the science ends up showing that certain types of trans-affirming medicine for minors is indicated, ameliorative/curative, and ethical. As long as we're agreed on a science-based approach to medicine, I'm happy to compromise with TPAs wherever the science says I should.

3. Equality of treatment and access, as outlined by the EEOC, the Civil Rights Act, and similar documents/proposals. Here I'm 100% in alignment with trans rights activists. Whatever compromises might be necessary, have already been made. As far as I can tell, the TRAs have gotten everything they wanted on this front, and rightly so.
 
theprestige said:
That all seems pretty reasonable to me.

So we've basically got three conflict scenarios:

1. Overriding sex segregation. I see no room for compromise there. Either the TPAs concede all their demands, or the "bashers" do. There's no rational middle ground that I can see.

2. Trans affirming care for minors. My personal, "basher" view is that trans identity in minors is at best a myth, and at worst social contagion/grooming. Either way, it should almost always be ignored, in favor of letting puberty (with its myriad and transient dysphorias) run its course, and then seeing what self-identity conflicts the emerging adult still struggles with. BUT - I am absolutely willing to change my stance, if the science ends up showing that certain types of trans-affirming medicine for minors is indicated, ameliorative/curative, and ethical. As long as we're agreed on a science-based approach to medicine, I'm happy to compromise with TPAs wherever the science says I should.

3. Equality of treatment and access, as outlined by the EEOC, the Civil Rights Act, and similar documents/proposals. Here I'm 100% in alignment with trans rights activists. Whatever compromises might be necessary, have already been made. As far as I can tell, the TRAs have gotten everything they wanted on this front, and rightly so.
Click to expand...

I would add to this the understanding that issue #3, the de facto equality of treatment and access, falls short of adequate in many places in the U.S., and many more places elsewhere, and is threatened in the future in the U.S. by ongoing conservative political trends. Out in the wild (not, as far as I know, here) there are "bashers" working on the wrong side of #3 who are actual bigots. Their existence is not a valid argument for capitulation on #1 and #2.
 
Myriad said:
I would add to this the understanding that issue #3, the de facto equality of treatment and access, falls short of adequate in many places in the U.S., and many more places elsewhere, and is threatened in the future in the U.S. by ongoing conservative political trends. Out in the wild (not, as far as I know, here) there are "bashers" working on the wrong side of #3 who are actual bigots. Their existence is not a valid argument for capitulation on #1 and #2.
Click to expand...
What's important to me on #3 is that I agree with trans rights activists on the de jure standard, and I agree that where the de facto equality falls short, we should work to bring it in line with the de jure. I agree with TRAs on both the "should" and the "is" of issue #3. I disagree with them about the "should" of 1 and 2.
 
Ziggurat said:
We have zero animal studies of puberty blockers used to delay puberty past the normal window
Click to expand...
We have zero reason to suppose it would be significantly worse than juvenile castration, which is incredibly common and reasonably well understood in animals.
theprestige said:
Overriding sex segregation. I see no room for compromise there.
Click to expand...
I can think of "compromise" positions which would piss off both sides, e.g. males can be allowed in female prisons and locker rooms after bottom surgery.

(IIRC this used to be policy In some places.)
 
d4m10n said:
I can think of "compromise" positions which would piss off both sides, e.g. males can be allowed in female prisons and locker rooms after bottom surgery.
Click to expand...
This could be implemented in prison. It cannot be implemented in public bathrooms and changing rooms.
 
d4m10n said:
We have zero reason to suppose it would be significantly worse than juvenile castration, which is incredibly common and reasonably well understood in animals.

I can think of "compromise" positions which would piss off both sides, e.g. males can be allowed in female prisons and locker rooms after bottom surgery.

(IIRC this used to be policy In some places.)
Click to expand...

Vet here. I know of one animal study and the young sheep in the treatment group showed significant cognitive deterioration which did not reverse when the drugs were withdrawn.

Juvenile castration is a bad comparison. In meat animals the idea is that they are killed at a young age anyway, and nobody actually cares if they're a bit dim. In companion animals it is now recognised that it's a bad idea, although some people declare that having a dog or a cat that is in perpetual adolescence is what they want.

It's recognised that men who were castrated as boys displayed petulant teenage behaviour as adults, often excused as an artistic temperament.
 
Rolfe said:
In companion animals it is now recognised that it's a bad idea, although some people declare that having a dog or a cat that is in perpetual adolescence is what they want.
Click to expand...
Any studies on point?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom